I'm not saying the shield gives you a better chance of surviving.
Sure. But the whole "shield versus gun" thing came out of Stupidmonkey finding the idea of a gun being used for defense amusing (as opposed to armor and/or shields). I was simply illustrating that while it may seem counterintuitive, a gun is actually a vastly more effective means of defending yourself, your property, and even other people, than anything we might traditionally think of as "defensive".
I'm saying that unless you are paranoid and sit in your living room chair with a gun ready to pounce, that armed guy who just kicked in your door has the advantage, and you can run to get any weapon you want, rifle, shotgun, handgun, shield, hammer, jart, if he really wants to kill you it's too late.
If we assume conditions in which I'm unable to use a gun to defend myself, then you are correct that the gun wont help me defend myself. Kinda pointless, but I suppose you're technically correct. Most of the time though, people don't burst into other people's homes. They attempt to open windows, and doors, and whatnot, seeking a means of entry into the home in a manner that will allow them sufficient time in the home to actually steal something of value. There's usually plenty of time for the occupant to retrieve a firearm if they have one.
And having the gun doesn't make the chance of anyone getting injured "very small".
In your contrived case where the intruder bursts in guns blazing? No. But most cases of home defense with a firearm do not involve the firearm being fired. Intruder is working a window or door open. I make him aware I'm armed (lots of ways to do this). Intruder runs off. This happens all the time (not to me personally of course). The problem is that this doesn't show up in the news or in crime statistics because the crime was prevented. But this does happen a hell of a lot more often than most people realize.
Edited, Jan 10th 2013 6:05pm by gbaji